RE: [fw-wiz] Comparisons between Router ACLs and Firewalls

From: Bill James (bubbagates_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/04/04

  • Next message: Wes Noonan: "RE: [fw-wiz] Comparisons between Router ACLs and Firewalls"
    To: "'Wes Noonan'" <mailinglists@wjnconsulting.com>, "'Paul Robertson'" <proberts@patriot.net>, "'Marcus J. Ranum'" <mjr@ranum.com>
    Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:30:16 -0500
    
    

    This is exactly what I saw on this baby 1720...Under stress it is so low
    on RAM that it would not display the running config...rather it would
    log a memory error to syslog

    I agree with Paul also...

    Care must be taken in chosing the correct device for the site involved
    and it's intended purpose and it's configuration, All must be proper for
    the intended purpose

    An underconfigured (both hardware and software configuration) device can
    kill you quickly.
     
    Bill James
     

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: firewall-wizards-admin@honor.icsalabs.com
    > [mailto:firewall-wizards-admin@honor.icsalabs.com] On Behalf
    > Of Wes Noonan
    > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 7:09 PM
    > To: 'Paul Robertson'; 'Marcus J. Ranum'
    > Cc: 'Bill James'; 'David Pick'; firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    > Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] Comparisons between Router ACLs and Firewalls
    >
    > One of the problems that we had when I was working for a
    > company that made network performance management tools was
    > dealing with this exact issue.
    > Because every packet size is variable in most networks (ATM,
    > etc. are obvious exceptions), the impact that many things
    > have on the performance of a network device becomes almost
    > impossible to make a general baseline statement about, much
    > to the chagrin of the sales force. This is so true that Cisco
    > (and most other vendors) typically refer to a set 64K packet
    > size in the small print on all of their performance metrics,
    > although this is obviously an impossible number to achieve in
    > the real world.
    >
    > The obvious performance impact on a router with ACLs has to
    > do with the fact that every packet now must be processed by
    > the router before it can be forwarded. This also requires the
    > router to be able to queue and buffer the packet during
    > processing. I seriously doubt that anyone could produce
    > numbers more accurate than "In my environment, generally
    > speaking" or "in an absolutely controlled environment, this
    > is what we saw". I agree with Paul here though that the when
    > you start trying to do things to the router itself you can
    > really see the performance impact some of these other things
    > have. I can't count how many routers I have seen reboot when
    > trying to show the running config because the router was
    > under too much stress for whatever reason (often times BGP
    > routers that are skimpy on RAM).
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > Wes Noonan
    > mailinglists@wjnconsulting.com
    > http://www.wjnconsulting.com
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: firewall-wizards-admin@honor.icsalabs.com
    > > [mailto:firewall-wizards- admin@honor.icsalabs.com] On
    > Behalf Of Paul
    > > Robertson
    > > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 17:40
    > > To: Marcus J. Ranum
    > > Cc: Bill James; 'David Pick'; firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    > > Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] Comparisons between Router ACLs and Firewalls
    > >
    > > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
    > >
    > > > I've never found any good studies of ACL performance. Do you have
    > > > any references you can point us to?
    > >
    > > Cisco used to publish some "can do $foo access lists
    > without impact"
    > > stuff with certain models. If we're lucky, maybe Brian
    > will see this
    > > and post some pointers.
    > >
    > > The not-normal-ACL stuff carries a heavy penalty - as the
    > extended ACL
    > > stuff does if you want silicon switching- I did a whole look at the
    > > switching methods versus performance stuff a while back
    > when writing
    > > TruSecure's router essential config guide- and for almost
    > everything
    > > (AIR, there were two cards on one model where things sucked) you
    > > didn't get into trouble until you had more rules than
    > sense. I think
    > > I left most of the switching mode stuff out of the document in the
    > > end, because it just confused people.
    > >
    > > Now, send packets *to* the router, or send packets where the router
    > > has to go to CPU land to process them, and things get significantly
    > > different (which is why you really want to ACL off your
    > routers from
    > > the rest of the
    > > world.)
    > >
    > > Paul
    > >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > ----
    > > ---
    > > Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal
    > > opinions
    > > proberts@patriot.net which may have no basis
    > whatsoever in fact."
    > > probertson@trusecure.com Director of Risk Assessment TruSecure
    > > Corporation _______________________________________________
    > > firewall-wizards mailing list
    > > firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    > > http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > firewall-wizards mailing list
    > firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    > http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


  • Next message: Wes Noonan: "RE: [fw-wiz] Comparisons between Router ACLs and Firewalls"

    Relevant Pages